Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 8

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Split into two articles

I don't want to be another person saying this article is in bad condition, (which it is) but there needs to be two separate articles on this topic. One which actually talks evolution (merely a basic definition "Change over time" or something), and an article speaking of the theory of evolution.

The word evolution does not refer solely to the creation of this world and Darwinism, evolution is also used to describe other topics such as "the evolution of an economy".

This article instantly jumps up and starts attempting to disprove the theory of evolution, and then three paragraphs later it states the theory that humans and other organisms evolved.

The educational value should not be lost due to idealogical debate. JamesLipton 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You just said it! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
He didn't want to say it, but did. And he's right (as everyone else who points this out is). Jrssr5 08:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Humbug. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 10:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No split is envisioned at the present time. You might want to look at origins debate. I'm also working on something at User:Ed Poor/aspects of evolution, on which I invite your comments. --Ed Poor 12:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

They ran me off at Wikipedia

They ran me off at Wikipedia because I couldn't stop telling them that the Intelligent Design page was a poor piece of writing. That article was (and remains) a hit-job filled with bias. I'd really hate to see Conservapedia be the same animal, but a different color. All I wanted to see at Wikipedia was a format change and more accurate and fair use of the English language. I think the intelligent design page found on Conservapedia is absolutely perfect. Can we see something more like that here? Do we really need a long disertatation on why Evolution is dumb? Please don't drag in long wordy thesis about some tangential topic. State the theory. State the pro's and con's and then move on. Don't attempt to prove or disprove the theory. It's an impossible task, a waste of time and it just makes people angry.

Everwill 08:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Having a bad article makes people angry too, but no one in the "management" here will listen. Jrssr5 08:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Keep in mind that the Conservapedia Panel have listened, and are considering what to do. Philip J. Rayment 09:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure they will, won't you fellas? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 10:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Perfect? The Intelligent Design page here doesn't go into any detail at all about what Intelligent Design really is. "Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" in an extremely oversimplified explanation of "Intelligent Design" as devised by Michael Behe. How is a page that provides only the vaguest of descriptions of its main topic "perfect"? Moreover, it makes the claim that "some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life", while 1) offering no sources and 2) confusing the theory of evolution with an explanation for the origin of life (a mistake made by someone who doesn't actually understand the theory of evolution).
I think that your definition of "perfect" does not match our Earth definition of the word. Dimensio 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Greetings, Earthlings; take us to your stove. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 12:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, did you have a rational response, or is your position so devoid of merit that you have to resort to responses lacking any substance? Dimensio 14:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Ha ha, that was a joke. You said "our Earth definition of the word", thus labelling us extraterrestrials, so, in a parody of what you said, I made the above response. Where's your sense of humor? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 15:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Scorp, because he made a legitimate comment and instead of responding to it, you made a mediocre joke. Next time, make the mediocre joke and respons to the point. Myk 15:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I would agree that the article isn't "perfect" either. However, your claim that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution is more accurately described as a recent change of definition by evolutionists to avoid embarrassment over the total lack of a viable explanation. It has in the past been considered part of evolution, and an alternative name for abiogenesis is "chemical evolution". Philip J. Rayment 12:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Please provide a historical definition of the theory of evolution that includes the subject of abiogenesis. Please state exactly when abiogenesis was removed from the theory of evolution. Please explain how the proposed mechanisms of the theory of evolution were used to explain the emergence of the first life forms. In short: please show that your claim that the theory of evolution once included abiogenesis but that part was removed because of "embarassment" is not simply something that you just made up. Dimensio 14:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
From here:
It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.'
Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’.
I'm not wanting to make a big issue out of this. If you don't want to include abiogenesis in evolution, fine. I can see the difference. But you should recognise that the claim that abiogenesis has never been part of evolution has not always been true.
Philip J. Rayment 06:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
This Kerkut fellow [1] apparently wasn't born until 1927, so almost seven decades after the OoS was published! If I'm reading this page right, the term "General Theory of Evolution" wasn't coined by him until a century after the OoS and I'm not convinced that its ever come into general usage, even among biologists. When people speak of "evolution" without a qualifier (e.g. "chemical", "cosmological", etc.), they're talking about biological evolution. Some sort of disambiguation at the top of the article might be in order though. -- Limulus 16:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
As I said somewhere, I wasn't claiming that abiogenesis was part of evolution from the time of Darwin, but that it was at one time. So your evidence that Kerkut came later is totally consistent with what I said. Philip J. Rayment 08:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I would put it exactly the other way around. Recently, people have been throwing around the word "evolution" as an abbreviation for what ought to be called "organic evolution." Dpbsmith 14:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
PJR: if you look at the 1st edition of the Origin of Species (linked previously), which I think we can all agree (1) represents the foundation of current scientific thinking on biological evolution and (2) its publication in 1859 is the point at which biological evolution entered the mind of the general public, Darwin does not speculate on the origin of life as it is not part of his theory; "It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. [...] I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. [... but] probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." The reason is that regardless of the origin of life, once formed it can evolve. In a private letter from 1863 published in the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2" [2] Darwin has some thoughts about abiogenesis, but then plays them down, concluding "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." -- Limulus 18:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I accept that Darwin did not (explicitly at least) include abiogenesis in his theory of evolution. But neither did he (explicitly at least) include the evolution of man in Origins. I'm not claiming that abiogenesis was part of evolution from the very beginning, just that it has not always been considered a totally separate subject. Philip J. Rayment 06:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
And therein lies the greatest weakness of the theory as it presently stands (assuming that you're on the level here): that evolution cannot talk about the origin of life. Life cannot be past-eternal. Matter itself is not. And life that comes from life, must always have a parent. Without a First Parent, you have infinite regression. Do you really doubt that dedicated evolutionists immediately set about speculating on the origin of the first cell? Not to mention that Darwin is also reported to have said that if any form of life be proved not able to arise out of the simplest of chemical elements, then his entire theory falls to the ground. Hence the importance of Michael Behe's findings.--TerryHTalk 19:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Could you please supply a source for that reference? I don't remember a comment to that effect (Darwin did say in the OoS "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." but that's not the same thing, though that is what Behe has made claims about, as "irreducible complexity") and the quote I gave from the OoS about a "primordial form, into which life was first breathed" speaks directly against that. Regarding not speaking to the origin of life, I don't see how that's a "weakness" in evolution per se, rather than a limitation (it is not the Theory of Everything :). When considering Newton's laws, we do not say it is a 'weakness' that he didn't describe where matter came from. So too for Darwin and the origin of life, as the second quote spoke of. -- Limulus 01:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Can you support your claim that matter is not past-eternal?
In any case, origin of life is a problem for evolution to precisely the extent that origin of matter is a problem for atomic theory. Tsumetai 06:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Once again a creationist fails to understand even the basics of the theory of evolution or of scientific inquiry in general. The theory of evolution is a proposed mechanism to explain extant biodiversity (explaining it as emergent from common ancestry). This mechanism only applies in the existence of populations of imperfect replicators (such as life). Before life existed, there were no imperfect replicators, and as such the mechanisms of the theory of evolution did not apply. While the origin of the first life is of interest to biologists, the mechanism of that genesis must be different than the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, as the mechanisms of the theory of evolution do not apply before life exists. No one is proposing infinite regress. This is only an acknowledgement of the scope of explanation of the theory of evolution. But creationists do no research, so they spout falsehoods and they refuse to learn why their claims are wrong and/or meaningless.
The theory of evolution addresses a process that occurs on populations of existing organisms. It does not matter to the theory how those organisms ultimately originated, nor does it matter to the theory how the matter that composes those organisms originated. You cannot falsify the theory of evolution by pointing out that there is no currently known means to derive life from non-life. Dimensio 09:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
"But creationists do no research, so they spout falsehoods and they refuse to learn why their claims are wrong and/or meaningless.". False, false, and false. Creationists do do research (so should I accuse you of lying?), they tell the truth (although like everybody else they are not perfect), and they do not refuse to learn why some of their claims are wrong. Evidence of this last point is that they have changed their mind on some ideas. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
What research do creationists actually conduct? The majority of creationist "research" from professional creationist outfits that I have seen involves using misunderstandings or falsehoods to attack scientific claims in support of an "old" age of the earth or in support of evolution. The "research" that I have seen from layman creationists who post on Internet discussions involves parroting those arguments made by professional creationist outfits, often without even actually attempting to understand them. I cannot begin to count the number of creationists I have observed parroting the oft-debunked claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves the theory of evolution. When I ask them to provide the thermodynamic calculations to show how evolution allegedly violates this law (which would require that the creationist in question actually know what the second law states mathematically and how entropy is calculated) I am treated to one of three things: more regurgitation of creationist sources that does not address my question (as no calculations are provided in said regurgitation), an attempt to completely change the subject or dead silence. Copying and pasting, or even paraphrasing, information taken (and not even understood) from creationist websites is not research.
Your statement that "they tell the truth" is a non-sequitur. I have no doubt that most creationists do speak truthfully on some subjects at times. These times are rarely, if ever, when they are speaking on the subject of evolution, however. I said that creationists spout falsehoods. This is undeniable. Look at TerryH's above claim that the theory of evolution directly justifies the selective breeding of humans. It is impossible for any scientific theory, including the theory of evolution, to "justify" any action. Scientific theories are only statements that amount to "in condition Y, X happens". There is no possible way to take any such statement, apply no other conditions, and arrive at "Z should be made to happen". TerryH's statement was a falsehood. Scorpionman claimed that "atheistic evolutionists are liberals". Repeated more than once her and from creationists elsewhere is the claim that those who accept evolution as valid are universally atheists, liberals or both. That is a demonstratably false claim; there are theists who accept evolution, there are conservatives who accept evolution, there are atheist conservatives who accept evolution and there are theist liberals who accept evolution. Denying this demonstratable reality is spouting a falsehood. Moreover, many creationists repeat these falsehoods and more, even after they are corrected. This means that they are willfully lying.
There seems to be some kind of weird disconnect with reality, or at least with ethics, that creationists undergo when discussing evolution and creationism. I have witnessed such brazen displays of dishonesty from creationists that I have wondered how they are able to function in society. In one discussion regarding philosopher Antony Flew, shortly after articles about him accepting a "prime mover" deity surfaced, a creationist quipped that he had rejected the theory of evolution. I pointed out to that individual that the article explicitly stated that Flew accepted the theory of evolution. Said creationist told me to "Read the article again. He rejects it." I did read the article again, and in a subsequent response I quoted the exact section of text from the article where the claim that Flew still accepts evolution was made. The creationist's response was to insult me and run off. But the story doesn't end there. About a month later I encountered this creationist in another discussion. I brought up this creationists's past fib. The creationist repsonded by DENYING HAVING EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FLEW IN THE FIRST PLACE. I even linked to that person's own online posting on the subject, yet the creationist adamantly insisted that she had never said what was plainly available for all to see that she had said. Even in the face of indisuptable proof that she was wrong, she insisted that she was in the right. That is not an isolated incident; I've encountered innumerable creationists who willfully lie, who have taken words -- even my own -- out of context, who have applied dishonest double-standards of evidence and who have insulted anyone who dares disagree with them on any subject. I have very rarely witnessed a creationist admit error. I have seen that a few (though not all) of the creationists who pushed the claim that the knee joint of the Lucy specimen was found nearly a mile away from the rest of the skeleton admit that their information was based upon a misunderstanding, yet even many of these did not publish a full retraction; they simply stopped making the claim. That... is about it. I really can't think of any other circumstance where a creationist embraced and advocated a particular claim, then later acknowledged that the claim was incorrect, no matter how thoroguly dunked the claim was. Do you happen to have any references? Dimensio 12:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
"What research do creationists actually conduct?". Are you admitting that you know so little about the idea that you so readily dismiss? Don't you find out about creation by reading what they write? Creationists have done research into geological events, bristlecone pines, plate tectonics, dating methods, and cosmology, among other things. Have a read of some of the articles in the Journal of Creation, for example.
"I cannot begin to count the number of creationists I have observed parroting the oft-debunked claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves the theory of evolution.". And neither have I counted the number of evolutionists that have tried debunking it with invalid arguments. Draw. But to clarify, yes, many lay creationists, like many lay evolutionists, do use out-dated and invalid arguments. But to make a general statement about "creationists", which includes scientists and other experts, is to tar all with the brush of the bad ones.
"It is impossible for any scientific theory, including the theory of evolution, to "justify" any action.". Technically, you could be correct. But I've seen plenty of examples where evolution is used, or can be used, to justify various things. See here for an example of where it can be used to justify rape.
"There seems to be some kind of weird disconnect with reality, or at least with ethics, that creationists undergo when discussing evolution and creationism.". Perhaps your problem is that you've only encountered the lay creationists arguing in on-line forums, instead of reading the creationary scientists who research and write papers. In other words, your sample is skewed. But if you want a counter-example, have a look at this, a respected geologist at a major university who wrote a book attacking creationists, which book was endorsed by various anti-creationists, yet he got his science wrong and his ethics were so bad that he was even criticised by (some) other anti-creationists.
"I have very rarely witnessed a creationist admit error. ... I really can't think of any other circumstance where a creationist embraced and advocated a particular claim, then later acknowledged that the claim was incorrect, no matter how thoroguly dunked the claim was. Do you happen to have any references?". See here. Not all are arguments that CMI used to use, but I'd guesstimate that around half of them are.
Philip J. Rayment 08:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Your linked article does not show that the theory of evolution "justifies" rape. That looks like yet another creationist lie. That 'rape' might have been a factor in human evolution in the past does not make rape morally or ethically justified. Science is about describing how the world is, not how the world ought to be or how people ought to behave. The interviewer goes off into a tangent, assuming that all who accept evolution are atheists, which is yet another creationist lie.
You think that the debunking of the "second law disproves evolution" claims are invalid? How so? What is invalid about pointing out that not one creationist has shown the thermodynamic calculations demonstrating that the process of evolution requires a net decrease in entropy in a relatively closed system over time? Do you have a reference to such calculations? If so, please reference them. If not, please explain how every debunking of the creationist canard that "the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution" is "invalid". Show that there is in fact a "draw" here, rather than just asserting it. I know that it's hard, a creationist actually being asked to support and unjustified assertion. I won't hold my breath.
Regarding the "arguments we think creationionists should not use": I'm aware of it. Note that they don't admit to having used the arguments themselves. They just recognize the arguments as debunked and advise other creationists not to use them; not that it stops creationists from using them anyway, and not that the creationists who do use them will ever acknowledge that they were wrong (I once sent a creationist into hysterical fits when they refused to accept that the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion was a lie, and another began spinning a tale of contradictory crap to avoid admitting making the same mistake). Also, I have an issue with a website that, on its about page, says "This naturalistic philosophy (‘evolution’) removes any clear source of authority in our lives." I have trouble assigning any credibility any resource that pushes the lie that the theory of evolution is equivalent to atheism. Anyone who claims that is a liar, and nothing that they say can be trusted. Dimensio 09:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
"Your linked article does not show that the theory of evolution "justifies" rape.". I didn't say that it did. I said that it shows how evolution can be used to justify rape.
"That 'rape' might have been a factor in human evolution in the past does not make rape morally or ethically justified.". But how do you condemn rape on that basis?
"The interviewer goes off into a tangent, assuming that all who accept evolution are atheists, which is yet another creationist lie.". The interviewer does not use the words "atheist" or "atheism" except in reference to Voltaire. So clearly you are wrong. Can I therefore call you a liar?
"You think that the debunking of the "second law disproves evolution" claims are invalid?". Many of the ones that I've heard, yes. I didn't say they all were. I said that I've often heard invalid rebuttals, like you claim that you've often heard invalid arguments for it.
"I know that it's hard, a creationist actually being asked to support and unjustified assertion. I won't hold my breath.". Vilification of an opponent is the resort of someone with no argument.
"Regarding the "arguments we think creationionists should not use": I'm aware of it.". So why did you claim that you know of no cases of creationists admitting that they were wrong?
" Note that they don't admit to having used the arguments themselves.". They say, "Many of these arguments have never been promoted by CMI,... which clearly indicates that some of them have been embraced by CMI in the past.
"Anyone who claims that is a liar, and nothing that they say can be trusted.". So given the falsities that you've said, should I trust anything that you say?
Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

No, you didn't show how the theory of evolution "can be" used to justify rape. There is no possible logical means to use "alelle frequency change over time combined with environmental selection pressures led to the emergence of all extant diverse life from common ancestry" to derive "rape is acceptable". None. In fact, it is impossible to go from any statement of "the natural properties of the universe are such that given condition X, Y will happen" to "Z is morally acceptable". If you disagree, give a specific example. Your interview certainly doesn't make the point. The interview that you reference goes on about the consequences of there being no central authority. As "there is no central moral authority" is neither a premise nor a logical conclusion of the theory of evolution, your example is meaningless.
Perhaps you could reference an "invalid" debunking of a second law claim, rather than making empty assertions. For example, what is wrong with this explanation. Be sure to be specific. Dimensio 13:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for posting a vague and easily misunderstood comment. Please allow me to clarify, I don't think the Intelligent Design article is perfect. The article itself is far from perfect. What is perfect is the format of the article. It states the theory, plainly and without bias. Then it states some of the related controversy. I just want to see the argument kept separate from the presentation of the idea. Everwill 20:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it doesn't state the theory. It says "Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.", and it doesn't even offer a citation. "Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. A theory suggests a mechanism. "An intelligent cause" is not a mechanism, it's just an assertion of deliberate action with motive. My house may have been designed by an architect, but conceiving of a building structure is not itself a "mechanism". It was the laying of a foundation, the laying of bricks and the hammering of nails into wood that acted as "mechanisms" that got the house built. Writing the initial design sketches on paper could even be called a "mechanism", but the sentence for ID doesn't even state that much.
It's also wholly incomplete. The theory of "intelligent design", as coined by Michael Behe, states that all extant organisms are related through common ancestry, but during the process of evolution over generations of populations, a designer (of unspecified nature) used unspecified methods to "design" features that could otherwise not have emerged. It doesn't even say anything about the universe in general, it addresses only specific features of biological organisms.
I still have to disagree. The presentation of "intelligent design" here is not perfect. It is uncited, it fails to actually state a theory and it's wrong. Dimensio 09:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

is it just me?

Or has Conervative not stopped editing the article pending a resolution from the panel? And when is that panel going to rule, anyway? Myk 19:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Very 1984 eh? PleaseBanThisAccount 20:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I just put in about two small changes based on talkpage feedback. I didn't change the direction of the article. I am waiting for the panel to decide.Conservative 20:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Okay Ken whatever you say. Complete 20:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Complete, see: Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 6 By the way, Where is your evidence?Conservative 20:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I think you got the wrong guy there Complete, I've seen kdbuffalo in action (now there was a piece of work). Conservative, on the other hand is much more amiable and polite, (okay, he has his moments when he's less than civil; but given the unrelentingly caustic nature of those evo-POV pushers, I think he's done an excellent job of reining himself in). User:kdbuffalo was a real nutcase! I don't know what happened to him but I wouldn't be surprised if he was out and about torturing small animals. No, our Conservative is alright. Crackertalk 20:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji ran checkuser on conservative it matched with IP blocks on KDbuffalo. Complete 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Complete, I don't know anything about the particulars of Hoji's analysis. Second, I use places to edit that are available to the general public. How many people have access to the locations I use? And again, please see: Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 6 Conservative 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I didn't think plain old sysops were able to access checkuser? The only one listed is CPWebmaster. Unless Hoji went against some rule or another. I don't know. And he's gone for a week so I can't very well verify your allegation can I?-+- Crackertalk 20:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Special:CheckUser -- "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups "Sysops", "Check users"." --Mtur 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Checkuser is currently set so SYSOP can use it on this site, its an issue that has been raised before but Aschlafly has ignored it. Check [3] to see the diff where hoji told Conservative he had done the check. Not to mention the MO is very similar for example, blanking talk pages of any criticism, quote mining, ect. Complete 20:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Whatever though, there is no doubt its the same person, and I think it should explain a lot of he subverssive behavior on this site. It is also strong evidence that what ever social ineptidude he is bringing to wikis is not changing anytime soon. Its just a warning to anyone that will try to engage with him. Complete 21:03, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Complete, "subversive"? What am I doing that is subversive? Putting conservative edits that are notated on Conservapedia? By the way, subversive is spelled with one s. Conservative 21:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I have no intention of engaging you in any sort of discussion or debate. I know exactly what you are, probably even better than you do. Now go back to ignoring everything around you. Complete 21:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry: You (Complete) have five posts, all of them to this thread and all trolling Conservative. Build some sort of history, gain trust and respectability before casting your aspersions. -+ Crackertalk 21:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
As you can see from [4] Hoji is the one that figured it out and made the claim not I. He has more than enough weight around here. I am not stupid enough to "troll" conservative with my main account as he will most likely block this account. Complete 21:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Complete, say hello to User:Stick1 for me. Stick1 signed up almost immediately right after you with the same IP number. Conservative 21:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Aren't you a little detective, stick1 is not my main account either, its sockpuppets all the way down........but whatever. Complete 21:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Who cares whether a particular user on Wikipedia is the same as a particular user here? Surely what's relevant here is what a user does here. Dpbsmith 21:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

And he is doing ths same thing here that he did there. Obviously Conservative cares, I am just providing information to anyone that things that they can engage him directly. Complete 21:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
The only issue would be if a user who feels he or she has been mistreated on Wikipedia by the establishment comes here and attempts to use the new establishment to rectify the situation. The danger in doing so is that the exact same things that were complained about there are being brought here again. Allegedly biased articles, locking of them so they cannot be edited, and banning of people who engage in edit wars with the establishment. If that is the case, this place will become even worse than Wikipedia. --Mtur 21:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting Better

I think the edits are better, but you'll undermine the credibility of the site if you start slipping in little "hits" on topics you don't like. For example, the "materialist" comment in the first line is gratuitous, judgemental and uncalled for. Just explain the theory, don't try to pontificate. Don't be so arrogant as to presume to know the truth in this matter. (That's why I hate the knuckleheads at Wikipedia.) Just present what the experts think (without editorial bias) and move on. Leave the debates to the discussion pages and bloggers. Everwill 21:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Although the first line is technically correct, I am not in favor of it either. Although I do not agree with them, some theists subscribe to the Theory of evolution too. And then there are the "Theistic evolution" people too whom I mention in the article. Conservative 22:03, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I consider myself conservative. I also consider Evolution a fact and not a theory. However, I'm not a scientist or a philosopher. There are few on the planet who are qualified to issue proclamations about this subject. Therefore I think it's important that we report top level facts and stay far above the controversy. Why can we have at least a pretense of fairness and use the same article template for Intelligent Design as for Evolution? This article should be retitled "Why Evolution is Wrong." It's not about Evolution.Everwill 07:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Panel and Editing

The reason I originally left Conservapedia was the whole Panel scandal, which as much as I disagree with the idea of a panel, I am forced to accept. I was under the impression that this article was to remain untouched until the panel reached a decision, something they haven't done, as far as I know. If it is the case that editing shouldn't be done, why, pray tell, have there been over 120 edits, mostly by Conservative, and anytime someone else makes an edit, usually reverting Conservative's edits, adding citations, or removing blatantly obvious out-of-context quotes, he reverts the article back to his version saying, "Let the Panel decide." Seems sort of hypocritical to me, and I'm not the first to point it out, yet none of the higher powers have done anything about this abuse of power. 'Tis a shame, I hope something is done to fix this fiasco quickly. ColinRtalk 05:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ye Gods, it's Colin! *cheers*
My personal guess is that they're trying to come up with a way to temp-ban all the objectors for a month the moment they announce the panel's decision to leave things to Conservative because "it's the third most viewed article on Conservapedia, and that means it's perfect the way it is!"
And while there has been a recent ceasefire treaty with the decision not to do ANY editing, there have been SIX edits by Conservative, some with edit summaries like "This isn't really editing! I'm still complying with the rules!", which kinda reminds me of this "I'm not touching you... not touching youuuuuuuu...." thing where a school kid holds his finger an inch away from your face. But hey, it's okay as long as Andy doesn't complain. *shrug* --Sid 3050 05:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
To be fair, most of the recent edits have been fairly minor. Tsumetai 05:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
On the other hand, I just noticed some fairly substantial differences between this version and the version that was agreed upon. In particular, the one pro-evolution book in the recommended reading section has been removed. Tsumetai 05:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I was going to say, if you compare the version from when it was first announced (by CPWebmaster, also the time when I left) that the Panel should decide the version to now, there are over 190 edits and the sum of all those edits is pretty substantial. See here. Then more editing was to be had until Conservative said not to edit the article until the panel decides, and since then 120 edits have been made as seen here. ColinRtalk 05:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
What the-... O_o (Even though a few minor edits, especially the last block, were due to the Manual of Style now forbidding wikis as sources) That's quite a bit for "No changes"... --Sid 3050 05:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Is it not obvious? Creationists lie. Then they either lie about their lying, or they make excuses for it. They're willing to lie shamelessly and brazenly about the theory of evolution (look at TerryH's rants about eugenics and selective breeding, with no substance to back it up, and look at the oft-repeated assertion that all who accept the theory of evolution as valid are liberals), so why is it not surprising that they will lie just as shamelessly and brazenly on other subjects?
It's clear: when Conservative said that there would be no more edits, he was lying. Dimensio 09:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
"Creationists lie." Thank you for your slanderous accusation. It's wrong for a number of reasons. One, it's an over-generalisation. For another, a sincere mistake is not a lie. Neither is a broken promise. Philip J. Rayment 11:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree that a "sincere mistake" is not a lie, but 120 edits after "no more edits" is not a "sincere mistake". A broken promise, however, is a lie, at least when broken without a very good reason, and I see no very good reason for Conservative's antics. Also, I did not adopt the phrase "creationists lie" lightly. It was only after extensive experience and observation of willful dishonesty en masse by creationists that I began making the statement. Dimensio 12:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Come on, don't tell me you deny that most supporters of evolution are liberal, godless atheists who deny the Lord's influence and try to replace Him with what they call "science". You know it's true ;) --Sid 3050 13:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Too bad. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 08:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
How so, Scorpion? ColinRtalk 08:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll correct Dimensio's statement, to account for Philip's note that it's an overreach. Here we go: "creationists on this site lie". But really, I don't think that Dimensio's statement is that much of an overreach. A few of the footnotes from the Dover trial - Kitzmiller v. Dover SD - consist of the Judge admonishing the ID side for blatantly lying under oath, or having deliberately "selective" memories. I'm sure I'll be criticized for this so I got the pincite ready - 400 F. Supp.2d 707, 727 (note 7), quote at the bottom of the page.-AmesGyo! 00:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Judge Jones on Discovery Institute Testimony

"n7 Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not "teaching" ID but instead is merely "making students aware of it." In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." Judge John E. Jones III, Republican, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Independent School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727. (brought to you by AmesGyo! 00:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT))

Personal tools